Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI
Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarMs. Astha Chandra
ORDER
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 27.01.2023.
Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:
“1. That the order dated 27.01.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the “Act”) by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to hold that the Appellant Company has failed to make detailed submissions as called for in support of the grounds of appeal by ignoring the fact that detailed submissions were duly uploaded on 20.10.2021 and 16.12.2021 respectively.
Desein Pvt. Ltd.
That the order dated 27.01.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the National Faceless eal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore in adding back a sum of Rs. 83,98,928/- (Rs 10,78,715/- on account of Employee Contribution to Employees State Insurance (ESI) and Rs. 73,20,213/- on account of Employee Contribution to Provident Fund (PF)) on account of alleged delayed payment of Employees’ Contribution to PF/ESI by invoking the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act.
3. That the order dated 27.01.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore in disallowing a sum of Rs. 7,41,152/- as referred in section 43B, which was not allowed in the assessment of any preceding previous year and was paid during the year as claimed in the Income tax Return filed by the Assessee Company.
4. That the order dated 27.01.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore in adding back a sum of Rs 2,02,124/- as expenditure incurred at clubs being entrance fees and subscriptions by invoking the provision of section 37 of the Income-tax Act 1961 whereas no such expenditure were made by the Assessee Company during the relevant Assessment Year.
That the order dated 27.01.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified in directing the Ld. Assessing Officer to verify and reconcile correctness of TDS credit as claimed in the return of income with gross receipts as admitted in the Profit and Loss A/c Desein Pvt. Ltd. out of denied credit of Rs. 23,66,437/- and allowed the same to the extent it is verified and reconciled.
That the order dated 27.01.2023 passed u/s 250of the “Act” by the by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer, CPC in making the adjustments while passing the order as the same fall beyond the scope of the provisions of Section 143(1) of the Act.”
3. In this case, the disallowance on account of ESI & PF was made by the CPC owing to the Tax Audit Report. The assessee submitted that the Tax Audit Report has been revised which has not been considered. Hence, in the interest of justice, we remand the matter to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to examine the revised Tax Audit Report in the contest of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I in CA No. 2833/2016 vide order dated 12.10.2022.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 18/09/2023.